mikesbytes wrote:Impact is more difficult as you get older, if running was feasible for me, I would still be doing that rather than cycling. Bone density is consideration as you get older and if impact is out, then that leaves resistance exercise.

It seems that if you want to prevent bone density reduction, you have two major choices;- impact exercise (running, various group exercises, sports containing running)- resistance exercise (weight lifting or body weight)

There are plenty of articles supporting whatever viewpoints one may have such as this one but at the end of the day, the quality of life when we are elderly will depend heavily on the condition of our body and mind. Do the research and make the right choices now

AbstractThe purpose of the present study was to investigate the effect of maximal strength training on cycling economy (CE) at 70% of maximal oxygen consumption (Vo2max), work efficiency in cycling at 70% Vo2max, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power. Responses in 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and rate of force development (RFD) in half-squats, Vo2max, CE, work efficiency, and time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power were examined. Sixteen competitive road cyclists (12 men and 4 women) were randomly assigned into either an intervention or a control group. Thirteen (10 men and 3 women) cyclists completed the study. The intervention group (7 men and 1 woman) performed half-squats, 4 sets of 4 repetitions maximum, 3 times per week for 8 weeks, as a supplement to their normal endurance training. The control group continued their normal endurance training during the same period. The intervention manifested significant (p < 0.05) improvements in 1RM (14.2%), RFD (16.7%), CE (4.8%), work efficiency (4.7%), and time to exhaustion at pre-intervention maximal aerobic power (17.2%). No changes were found in Vo2max or body weight. The control group exhibited an improvement in work efficiency (1.4%), but this improvement was significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than that in the intervention group. No changes from pre- to postvalues in any of the other parameters were apparent in the control group. In conclusion, maximal strength training for 8 weeks improved CE and efficiency and increased time to exhaustion at maximal aerobic power among competitive road cyclists, without change in maximal oxygen uptake, cadence, or body weight. Based on the results from the present study, we advise cyclists to include maximal strength training in their training programs.PMID: 19855311 [PubMed - in process]

Sure, it's only one study, and small, but the interesting thing is it uses competitive road cyclists for the study population and the weights program was on top of their normal regimen.

re: the preceding post, one would assume in the absence of information that there were no changes to diet. You would need to read the full study to confirm.

Anecdotally, this works with how I seem to perform best on the cycle.

What would be interesting to see is an examination of the results on climbers, road sprinters and others to see the varying benefits/ non-benefits.

Have noticed a huge difference in my speed and climbing ability since not being able to get in the gym. But then again, I'm certainly not an endurance athlete and these results might be consistent with people like myself who find weights and short intensity workouts a more effective way of training, overall.

Chops wrote:Have noticed a huge difference in my speed and climbing ability since not being able to get in the gym. But then again, I'm certainly not an endurance athlete and these results might be consistent with people like myself who find weights and short intensity workouts a more effective way of training, overall.

that could also have to do with over training , did you provide enough time to recover between the gym workout and cycling? did you have enough food intake ?how often were you hitting the gym?

Chops wrote:Have noticed a huge difference in my speed and climbing ability since not being able to get in the gym. But then again, I'm certainly not an endurance athlete and these results might be consistent with people like myself who find weights and short intensity workouts a more effective way of training, overall.

that could also have to do with over training , did you provide enough time to recover between the gym workout and cycling? did you have enough food intake ?how often were you hitting the gym?

???

3 Sessions a week with one just being a max session. But I'm saying that the gym helped my cycling. I can't say what the effect of the gym work was, due to injury and general loss of strength, but all I know is I'm still down about 20% although riding twice as much prior to injury.

Chops wrote:3 Sessions a week with one just being a max session. But I'm saying that the gym helped my cycling. I can't say what the effect of the gym work was, due to injury and general loss of strength, but all I know is I'm still down about 20% although riding twice as much prior to injury.

Your sustainable aerobic power is down 20% ? How are you measuring this?

Chops wrote:3 Sessions a week with one just being a max session. But I'm saying that the gym helped my cycling. I can't say what the effect of the gym work was, due to injury and general loss of strength, but all I know is I'm still down about 20% although riding twice as much prior to injury.

Your sustainable aerobic power is down 20% ? How are you measuring this?

Chops wrote:3 Sessions a week with one just being a max session. But I'm saying that the gym helped my cycling. I can't say what the effect of the gym work was, due to injury and general loss of strength, but all I know is I'm still down about 20% although riding twice as much prior to injury.

Your sustainable aerobic power is down 20% ? How are you measuring this?

Sorry... my average speeds are down about 20%. As is my top speed.

Wow, well then your power must be at least half of what it was then. With such a substantial change in physical ability, I'd be seeing a doctor's wait room, not a gym's weight room.

mikesbytes wrote:Impact is more difficult as you get older, if running was feasible for me, I would still be doing that rather than cycling. Bone density is consideration as you get older and if impact is out, then that leaves resistance exercise.

like you mike, not that i cant run but i don't find it enjoyable.I like to include some sledgehammer work and box jumps into my weekly routine, I used to skip and include some boxing type bag work...

Although in regard to bmd and weight training if you calculate peak load figures for ballistic weight training the load on our bones increases considerably v a traditional program so...

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man."Mark Twain

That's an aspect of weight training that I haven't researched. As far as I can see to get the muscular aspects from weight training you need to fatigue the muscles and the method of getting there isn't terribly important. BUT what form of weight training is most effective for bone density?

mikesbytes wrote:That's an aspect of weight training that I haven't researched. As far as I can see to get the muscular aspects from weight training you need to fatigue the muscles and the method of getting there isn't terribly important. BUT what form of weight training is most effective for bone density?

mikesbytes wrote:That's an aspect of weight training that I haven't researched. As far as I can see to get the muscular aspects from weight training you need to fatigue the muscles and the method of getting there isn't terribly important. BUT what form of weight training is most effective for bone density?

Interesting article. Reading thru the pdf, it seems they were doing a controlled cross training scenario and even lifted similar weights based on 1RM. So the study appears to have isolated slow vs fast reps and found fast to produce better bone density in the subjects.

More study on the topic needs to be known, as there are a number of factors to gather in addition to this one.

Usually, strength training in a triathlon plan isnt for the bike leg specifically, but more for injury resistance (eg strengthening the rotator cuff muscles which are often injured in swimming and one legged squats for quad strength to avoid overuse running injuries). Instead of focusing on strength training to improve your cycling, maybe focus more on 'strength specific' drills on the bike; 3 minutes of 'hard' pedalling (at 60RPM) then 3 minutes 'very easy' will activate more slow twitch neurons, and you'll also build leg strength fast! This will help you kick people who annoy you. Try to keep your cadence in a triathlon around 70-80RPM, as this will burn a higher percentage of fats (as opposed to carbs, which you'll need in your run).

Wayfarer wrote:Try to keep your cadence in a triathlon around 70-80RPM, as this will burn a higher percentage of fats (as opposed to carbs, which you'll need in your run).

Fuel substrate use is a function of (relative) power output, not cadence.

I agree, your point is valid. Cycling races naturally take place at higher outputs than triathlon cycling (in athletes of similar fitness). High cadences tax the fast twitch muscles which is fine for the tour de France as there's no run, but not for a HIM...

Wayfarer wrote:Try to keep your cadence in a triathlon around 70-80RPM, as this will burn a higher percentage of fats (as opposed to carbs, which you'll need in your run).

Fuel substrate use is a function of (relative) power output, not cadence.

I agree, your point is valid. Cycling races naturally take place at higher outputs than triathlon cycling (in athletes of similar fitness). High cadences tax the fast twitch muscles which is fine for the tour de France as there's no run, but not for a HIM...

Actually, if anything, higher cadences are more likely using a greater proportion of slow twitch fibres, but there's not much in it - it's power output (again) that determines fibre type utilisation.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Actually, if anything, higher cadences are more likely using a greater proportion of slow twitch fibres, but there's not much in it - it's power output (again) that determines fibre type utilisation.

That's another interesting topic that's well worth discussing, so I've created a new thread for the conversation

I hate bringing up an old thread but in relation to weight training. I appreciate that doing weights is not going to be 100% transferable to cycling but after starting a strength training program I have recorded some results.- In each of the efforts mentioned below the heart rate has remained pretty stable. (difference of +/- 5bpm average)- The efforts are recorded on GPS and downloaded to a computer and the distances are plotted by the computer at the same point so there is no difference with distances between efforts- First recorded efforts are in September 2010 when strength training program was starting- Latest Results are recorded since 1st January 2011- My body weight has actually increased 2kg- The bike and equipment is exactly the same- Vo2 max test scores have remained the same (max aerobic speed test)1) Climb to Springwood via Mitchells Pass 1st effort - 38min 50secs latest effort - 34 min 13 secs2) Old Bathurst Rd - 1st effort - 12 min 28 secs latest effort - 11 min 51 secs3) Cobbity Rd Climb - 1st effort 5 min 40secs latest effort - 4 min 264) Lapstone Hill - 1st effort 9 min 47secs latest effort - 9 min 14secs.

You must continue to ride and do plenty of cardio because as you see whilst Mon and Wed are strength circuits, Friday is a hypertrophy circuit (ie size).After 4 weeks you have a fortnight off where you just do maintenance weights (ie 15 reps x 3 sets x 2 times per week) plus you really ramp up the cardio/riding.The next four weeks the circuit changes and the program goes basically for three months. If you want what else I have just PM me and I will send it through. As well the comes with the usual disclaimers ie make sure you use someone to assist cause done wrong can result in injuries etc.